US Automakers are planning to ask Mr. Trump to retain President Biden’s EPA exhaust rules, in the face of signs that Mr. Trump might try to reverse them. If the rules are reversed, it would cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of deaths per year.
Interestingly, this is the opposite of what big auto did the last time a reality TV show came to the White House – signaling that they have perhaps learned their lesson this time ’round.
First, some history.
In the middle of the 20th century, the effects of human activity on the atmosphere became readily apparent. Certain cities – with Los Angeles among the forefront – were choked by smog, and it was soon found out that vehicle pollution was the primary reason for this smog.
Since Los Angeles was one of the most smog-choked cities, California led the way on clean air regulation, creating the California Air Resources Board in 1967 (under then-Governor Ronald Reagan).
The federal government gave California special dispensation to set stricter regulations than the rest of the country, in recognition that it had a unique smog problem in its primary metropolis. California has retained this dispensation, in the form of a “waiver,” since then. And other states can follow California’s rules, but only if they copy all of the rules exactly.
Thus, there have been two separate sets of clean air regulation in this country since then – the federal rules, and then the “CARB states” which follow California’s rules.
In 2012 that finally changed, when President Obama’s EPA negotiated with California to finally harmonize these standards and also implement higher fuel efficiency nationwide. This would have been a huge boon for both industry and consumers, saving money and giving regulatory certainty to the auto industry.
But then, in 2016, the candidate who got the 2nd most votes in the presidential election was headed for the White House. And automakers responded by immediately lobbying to torpedo these standards, even before inauguration.
Now, you might think that asking a profoundly ignorant individual, who ended up staffing the EPA with bought-and-sold science deniers (huh, that would never happen again would it?), to change rules which had already been set through years of negotiation and lobbying was not a great idea. And you’d be right.
Not long after automakers had the dumb idea to ask an idiot to fix something that wasn’t broken, that idiot went and broke things further, fracturing the agreement between California and the federal government and ensuring less regulatory certainty for automakers.
But it was too late, and we are now back in the era of disparate regulatory regimes – something which John Bozzella, head of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (formerly called Global Automakers), keeps complaining about these days, despite having lobbied for exactly this in the first place.
The US EPA and California are still not fully harmonized, but both released recent new standards which do have somewhat similar targets. If a manufacturer builds towards one set of rules, they’ll probably not be too far off from meeting the other.
So in the end, we did get better emissions regulations and California has continued to push forward with clean air regulations, thus signaling a failure on the part of Mr. Trump to cause the long term harm to Americans that he and his oil industry solicitors so desperately seem to desire.
The most recent EPA standards, finalized in March (after being softened at the auto industry’s request), do not mandate any particular powertrain, but rather require steep emissions cuts – and EVs are the easiest way to achieve lower emissions.
Notably, Tesla lobbied in favor of making this last set of standards stronger, and they also lobbied against ruining the Obama/CA standards in 2016 – being one of very few automakers who were on the correct side of that discussion.
Despite that the President Biden EPA’s rules do not mandate any particular powertrain, Mr. Trump, in his usual ignorance, has said that he will end the nonexistent EV mandate. And now that he has received more votes than his opponent for the first time (after three tries, and despite committing treason in 2021 for which there is a clear legal remedy), it looks like the upcoming EPA might be directed to end these emissions cuts and fuel/health cost savings for Americans.
But in this instance, it sounds like the automakers might actually do the right thing for once, and ask the government not to do any rollbacks, and instead let them continue on with the plans without disruption from a convicted felon who seems determined to cede a US EV manufacturing boom back to China.
Detroit’s Big Three automakers – GM, Ford and Stellantis – are all reportedly trying to figure out how to ensure that these rules stay in place. The mentality is that constantly changing regulations are not beneficial for companies – particularly in the auto realm, where models take on the order of 7 years to plan and execute. Long-term planning is important for the hundreds of billions in manufacturing investment that EVs have attracted in the US during Biden’s EV push.
These attitudes are notable, given that this is not what automakers did in 2016/2017. That time, they compulsively pushed for fewer regulations, and now they are asking for regulations to remain in place.
It’s further notable that Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whose company lobbied strongly in favor of emissions cuts and makes more use of the federal EV tax credit than any other company, is now allied with the very entity that’s looking to harm EVs. It seems that we have entered opposite world.
On the other hand, a former reality TV host – tagged along with by the CEO of the company that has sold more electric cars than any other – seem determined to kill electric cars, despite the harm that would cause to Americans’ pocketbooks and health insurance premiums. And that famously vindictive character may be even more spurred towards this harmful course of action after failing in his efforts the first time.
Who ya got?
Charge your electric vehicle at home using rooftop solar panels. Find a reliable and competitively priced solar installer near you on EnergySage, for free. They have pre-vetted installers competing for your business, ensuring high-quality solutions and 20-30% savings. It’s free, with no sales calls until you choose an installer. Compare personalized solar quotes online and receive guidance from unbiased Energy Advisers. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
EV charging veteran ChargePoint has unveiled its new charger product architecture, which is described as a “generational leap in AC Level 2 charging.” The new ChargePoint technology designed for consumers in North America and Europe will enable vehicle-to-everything (V2X) capabilities and the ability to charge your EV in as quickly as four hours.
ChargePoint is not only a seasoned contributor to EV infrastructure but has established itself as an innovative leader in the growing segment. In recent years, it has expanded and implemented new technologies to help simplify the overall process for its customers. In 2024, the network reached one million global charging ports and has added exciting features to support those stations.
Last summer, the network introduced a new “Omni Port,” combining multiple charging plugs into one port. It ensures EV drivers of nearly any make and model can charge at any ChargePoint space. The company also began implementing AI to bolster dependability within its charging network by identifying issues more quickly, improving uptime, and thus delivering better charging network reliability.
As we’ve pointed out, ChargePoint continues to utilize its resources to develop and implement innovative solutions to genuine problems many EV drivers face regularly, such as vandalism and theft. We’ve also seen ChargePoint implement new charger technology to make the process more affordable for fleets.
Advertisement – scroll for more content
Today, ChargePoint has introduced a new charger architecture that promises to bring advanced features and higher charging rates to all its customers across residential, commercial, and fleet applications.
Source: ChargePoint
ChargePoint unveils maximum speed V2X charger tech
This morning, ChargePoint unveiled its next generation of EV charger architecture, complete with bidirectional capabilities and speeds up to double those of most current AC Level 2 chargers.
As mentioned above, this new architecture will serve as the backbone of new ChargePoint chargers across all segments, including residential, commercial, and fleet customers. Hossein Kazemi, chief technical officer of hardware at ChargePoint, elaborated:
ChargePoint’s next generation of EV chargers will be revolutionary, not evolutionary. The architecture underpinning them enables highly anticipated technologies which will deliver a significantly better experience for station owners and the EV drivers who charge with them.
The new ChargePoint chargers will feature V2X capabilities, enabling residential and commercial customers to use EVs to power homes and buildings with the opportunity to send excess energy back to the local grid. Dynamic load balancing can automatically boost charging speeds when power is not required at other parts of the connected building structure, enabling efficiency and faster recharge rates.
ChargePoint shared that its new charger architecture can achieve the fastest possible speed for AC current (80 amps/19.2 kW), charging the average EV from 0 to 100% in just four hours. That’s nearly double the current AC Level 2 standard (no pun intended).
Other features include smart home capabilities where residential or commercial owners can implement the charger within a more extensive energy storage system, including solar panels, power banks, and smart energy management systems. The new architecture also enables series-wiring capabilities, meaning fleet depots, multi-unit dwellings, or even residential homes with multiple EVs can maximize charging rates without upgrading their wiring configuration or energy service plan.
These new chargers will also feature ChargePoint’s Omni Port technology, enabling a wider range of compatibility across all EV makes and models. According to ChargePoint, this new architecture complies with MID and Eichrecht regulations in Europe and ENERGY STAR in the US.
The first charger models on the platform are expected to hit Europe this summer followed by North America by the end of 2025.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Crashing oil prices triggered by waning demand, global trade war fears and growing crude supply could more than double Saudi Arabia’s budget deficit, a Goldman Sachs economist warned.
The bank’s outlook spotlighted the pressure on the kingdom to make changes to its mammoth spending plans and fiscal measures.
“The deficits on the fiscal side that we’re likely to see in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] countries, especially big countries like Saudi Arabia, are going to be pretty significant,” Farouk Soussa, Middle East and North Africa economist at Goldman Sachs, told CNBC’s Access Middle East on Wednesday.
Spending by the kingdom has ballooned due to Vision 2030, a sweeping campaign to transform the Saudi economy and diversify its revenue streams away from hydrocarbons. A centerpiece of the project is Neom, an as-yet sparsely populated mega-region in the desert roughly the size of Massachusetts.
Plans for Neom include hyper-futuristic developments that altogether have been estimated to cost as much as $1.5 trillion. The kingdom is also hosting the 2034 World Cup and the 2030 World Expo, both infamously costly endeavors.
Digital render of NEOM’s The Line project in Saudi Arabia
The Line, NEOM
Saudi Arabia needs oil at more than $90 a barrel to balance its budget, the International Monetary Fund estimates. Goldman Sachs this week lowered its year-end 2025 oil price forecast to $62 a barrel for Brent crude, down from a previous forecast of $69 — a figure that the bank’s economists say could more than double Saudi Arabia’s 2024 budget deficit of $30.8 billion.
“In Saudi Arabia, we estimate that we’re probably going to see the deficit go up from around $30 to $35 billion to around $70 to $75 billion, if oil prices stayed around $62 this year,” Soussa said.
“That means more borrowing, probably means more cutbacks on expenditure, it probably means more selling of assets, all of the above, and this is going to have an impact both on domestic financial conditions and potentially even international.”
Financing that level of deficit in international markets “is going to be challenging” given the shakiness of international markets right now, he added, and likely means Riyadh will need to look at other options to bridge their funding gap.
The kingdom still has significant headroom to borrow; their debt-to-GDP ratio as of December 2024 is just under 30%. In comparison, the U.S. and France’s debt-to-GDP ratios of 124% and 110.6%, respectively. But $75 billion in debt issuance would be difficult for the market to absorb, Soussa noted.
“That debt to GDP ratio, while comforting, doesn’t mean that the Saudis can issue as much debt as they like … they do have to look at other remedies,” he said, adding that those remedies include cutting back on capital expenditure, raising taxes, or selling more of their domestic assets — like state-owned companies Saudi Aramco and Sabic. Several Neom projects may end up on the chopping block, regional economists predict.
Saudi Arabia has an A/A-1 credit rating with a positive outlook from S&P Global Ratings and an A+ rating with a stable outlook from Fitch. That combined with high foreign currency reserves — $410.2 billion as of January, according to CEIC data — puts the kingdom in a comfortable place to manage a deficit.
The kingdom has also rolled out a series of reforms to boost and de-risk foreign investment and diversify revenue streams, which S&P Global said in September “will continue to improve Saudi Arabia’s economic resilience and wealth.”
“So the Saudis have lots of options, the mix of all of these is very difficult to pre-judge, but certainly we’re not looking at some sort of crisis,” Soussa said. “It’s just a question of which options they go for in order to deal with the challenges that they’re facing.”
Global benchmark Brent crude was trading at $63.58 per barrel on Thursday at 9:30 a.m. in London, down roughly 14% year-to-date.
Comments